Country Glen Oak Park etc. v. Garrett CA2/6
B303220
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2021Background
- Country Glen Oak Park Homeowners Association (Association) sued homeowners Laurie and Brett Garrett after the Garretts' backyard renovation (pool, equipment pad, grading, retaining walls, etc.) encroached onto the development's common area and the Garretts removed/replaced an Association fence.
- The Garretts had an approved architectural application for a pool, but the project expanded beyond the approved plans; neighbors and the property manager alerted the board that pool equipment and a moved fence encroached onto common area.
- The board issued multiple cease-and-desist letters, held repeated meetings (including executive sessions), and attempted to inspect and retain an expert; the Garretts sometimes refused to attend, were hostile (Brett), and later reneged on agreements and denied access to the expert.
- The trial court entered a mandatory injunction ordering removal of the pool equipment and pad from the common area, awarded $820 for fence damage, issued a restraining order against Brett Garrett, and found the Association the prevailing party, awarding $318,426 in attorney fees.
- The Garretts appealed, arguing among other claims that the board failed to comply with Davis-Stirling notice/discipline procedures (Civ. Code §5855), acted irregularly and selectively, failed to follow CC&R inspection timing, misawarded damages and fees, and that the restraining order was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Civ. Code §5855 (notice/discipline) | Association: its demands sought compliance, not "discipline," and it substantially complied with notice requirements | Garretts: board action was disciplinary under §5855 and noncompliant, so enforcement void | Court: assumed §5855 might apply but found Association substantially complied; no reversible defect |
| Regular, fair, reasonable enforcement | Association: board afforded notice, hearings, and reasonable process despite Garretts' obstructive conduct | Garretts: board process was flawed, biased, and irregular | Court: process was fundamentally reasonable; Garretts largely caused procedural disorder by refusing/cooperating and acting abusively |
| Selective enforcement | Association: has enforced encroachment removals elsewhere; board reasonably prioritized complaints | Garretts: they were singled out while others with encroachments were not enforced | Court: selective-enforcement claim unpersuasive; board reasonably declined costly surveys and had specific evidence of Garretts' encroachment |
| CC&R inspection timing (60-day deeming provision) | Association: had repeatedly notified Garretts of noncompliance before the October 31 completion notice; further formalities would be futile | Garretts: they gave notice of completion and board failed to inspect within 60 days so work deemed compliant | Court: prior notices and Garretts' refusal to cooperate made the 60-day deeming inapplicable; board not required to perform futile acts |
| Damages for fence replacement | Association: fence damaged and Association entitled to cost to restore or replace | Garretts: damage award unsupported; some work tied to equipment removal so award improper | Court: damage to Association's fence caused by Garretts; $820 supported and Association may choose means to repair |
| Restraining order against Brett Garrett | Association: Brett's behavior (threats, intimidation, harassment) interfered with owners and management, warranting restraint | Garretts: Brett reacted to being mistreated; conduct didn't substantially interfere and order is overbroad/vague | Court: substantial evidence of harassment and intimidation; order appropriately tailored and not unconstitutionally vague |
| Attorney fees under Civ. Code §5975 (enforcement of governing documents) | Association: prevailing party in enforcement action and entitled to reasonable fees; mediation refusal not unreasonable | Garretts: Association didn't prevail on all claims, unreasonably refused mediation, fees excessive | Court: Association prevailed on principal encroachment issue; court considered mediation, found no unreasonable refusal, and did not abuse discretion in awarding nearly all requested fees |
Key Cases Cited
- MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. California Dept. of Tax & Fee Admin., 28 Cal.App.5th 635 (2018) (uses ordinary meaning of statutory terms for interpretation)
- Manderson-Saleh v. Regents of University of California, 60 Cal.App.5th 674 (2021) (substantial compliance with procedural statute suffices over form defects)
- Ironwood Owners Assn. IX v. Solomon, 178 Cal.App.3d 766 (1986) (associations must follow fair, reasonable procedures and act in good faith enforcing CC&Rs)
- Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger, 119 Cal.App.3d 670 (1981) (association must exercise enforcement power nondiscriminatorily)
- Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn., 21 Cal.4th 249 (1999) (courts defer to reasonable business judgment of HOA boards)
- Sands v. Walnut Gardens Condominium Assn., Inc., 35 Cal.App.5th 174 (2019) (characterization of contract breaches versus torts not controlling for compensatory relief)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) (attorney-fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)